|
im not the one making claims and setting deadlines.. im doing the opposite. im dispelling peoples "certainty's"
for me the odds of 1 application in 2024 is higher than some at same time in 2024
for me the odds of some at same time in 2024 is higher than most in quick succession but separate in 2024
for me the odds of most in 2024 is higher than 1 in 2023
for me the odds of 1 in 2023 is lower then majority of alternatives
all 12 at same time. lowest of all alternatives
there is also no point in blanket statements of "four get approved" because although readings of previous applications in last few months may indicate only 4 may be fairly treated. the companies can re-file and adjust any day and change before 2024.. but im sure that 2023 is not an approval year. and if more then one is approved in 2024 it wont be most/all at same time.
you also made a comment in other posts about the "let the market choose" well seeing as these spot etf will all be shadowing the bitcoin price the ups-downs of the market would be the same and the fiat-share-fiat of triggering cap gains/losses will be the same. the only main differeince of choices will be
a. preference of the company brand (grayscale, ark, blackrock)
b. preference of the agent brand
c. fee's
d. share/sat rate
many people that are big income earners would invest in ones where 1 share is 0.001
many people that are min wage earners would invest in ones where 1 share is 0.00001
the markets will play the same market patterns but minimum wage earners investing in their pension wont be able to put their 5% monthly to buy a whole 1 share of one brand. but can buy dozens of shares of other brand
so the differences between the ETF offerings is their peg rate and fee's
have you noticed how you went fro a stance just days ago of meriting others suggesting 2023 approval OR 12 at same time suggestions.. and you repeating them suggestions as high odds
to now have a more rational possibility of 4 within first quarter of 2024..
im not setting deadlines.. instead im hedging against the suggestions/ calming down the suggestions.. the only HUMOUR i will give is 50 merit to you if one was approved in 2023
|
|
|
|
i dont make claims of superior knowledge but i do admit i do do research. my claims are of opinion based on math logic common sense and research.. the parts that get me annoyed, (and yes i confess i do show my annoyances when i write. im human, not a script bot).. is when people pretend to be influencers or hope to send their message out to go viral or get attention, trying to shout deadlines of big news to cause some media hype.. but they themselves have not even done any research.. (not personal to just you. a few have done it which is multiplying the annoyance.. which then requires poking at suggested reasoning) for instance december is not actually a deadline of approval/rejection of the 12.. yet some keep saying it is for instance the hype of "all 12 will get approved at same time" based on what!!!?? if people even took a non-superior, common sense glance at all 12 they would see many of the applications fall short on even basic/standard fiat asset ETF practices of fund management security/processes.. so it does annoy me when blanket statements are made to suggest market movements are approaching due to all ETF being approved on X date.. but lack any reasonable justification for why they think all of them will be approved at same time(non superiorly, just logically, commonsensically based on even a glance of the applications) Yes, and it would be a mistake to select the winner as Blackrock only, even if they might be superior. The market can choose in regards to which product is superior as long as each of the products have mechanisms in place that protect consumers in regards to rug pulling, price manipulation, lack of truthful disclosures or whatever it is that the SEC is supposed trying to protect when it comes to different ways that the various ETF applicants might set up their ETF and try to distinguish themselves from other players.. whether it is fees or liquidity or some other kind of term/service that they might offer.
but thats the thing.. a passing glance at all applications shows not all of them meet the min SEC standards. and the SEC is not there just to rubber stamp any boiler room scam into running on nasdaq and just play "let the market decide". there would be lawsuit hell if the SEC took that much of a back seat (though yes decades of seeing fiat boiler room scams and inaction of SEC may appear the contrary) however mentioning it again. the SEC also wants to ensure the first approval "sets the standard" as its a precedence. setting minimal requirements for the next application to reach/exceed. you might be right that the SEC doesnt want to set a super high bar/barrier of entry standard so "might" approve more than one/in quick succession/same time. but looking (even at a glance) at the applications. not all of them have the basic kinks worked out
you know what.. just for pure humour. non mometary. not a gamble
if approval happens 2023.. ill merit your post
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5256529.msg63181711#msg63181711
with 50 merits..
if not 2023 you merit any post of mine you like with just 1 merit |
|
|
|
he didnt dismantle anything.. try to read like someone that knows the code.. not someone on auto pilot allegiance to core dev gods sponsorship deal preferences.. .. .. he twisted words and pretended x crap didnt happen (but then debunks himself by then saying it did but not in the way he read me saying it). then he goes on and says things cant be consensus because by definition its not. but then says how nodes are consistant in things based on known parameters.. priority formulae CAN be made a consensus rule.. anything can be made a consensus rule.. the rules are just code. and anything can be made a rule and enforced by the code.. got to love gmax's twistings everyone this week has seen mempools pruned purely for low fee rate.. everyones seen it. the prune rule is remove transactions due to a fee rate.. where as a fee priority would remove spammy, bloaty transactions first.. so when this was said the solution is much more simple.. get rid of the free market that lets nodes drop tx's in the initial relay. thus they would ALL have them all first go-around. without having to interrogate EACH connected node, after dropping.. because their would be no drop in the first place.
The need for nodes to potentially drop transactions has nothing to do with free market behaviour and everything to do with nodes not having infinite storage to keep the transactions. he pretends pruning mempool has nothing to do with the fee rate, "market". (facepalm) its the fee rate level, rules and code that decides what to prune!! which affects the market.. its all related and symbiotic rather than a proper coded formulae that would have decided that spammers should be pruned or bloaters should be pruned first THEY CHOSE to make the pruning no longer remove spam/bloat first. and instead remove low market fee first the point i raised then and keep raising is we keep getting occurrences of congestion where junk and spam are allowed in and many peoples genuine transactions are dropped due to a fee rate rule. rather than a rule that actually prefers to drop junk/spam first.. rather then a rule that penalises just the junk/spammers they prefered to "simplify" to "just a fee market" to cause everyone to be penalised when junk/spam occured but not deal with the junk/spam problem.. .. next funny is how he says about how this stuff reduces all the transaction relay repeats.. but then due to their actions, guess what.. people need to re-send their transactions to get back into mempool if the market goes down or respend with a higher fee RBF before being pruned or after being pruned if still not high enough or even send a child transaction to try to keep the low fee in mempool.. thus more transactions do get relayed just to fight the pruning mechanism |
|
|
|
It's because of the partial reserve system that the banking sector uses which helps them generate money from thin air. If a bank gets 100 USD from a user it can keep 10 as a reserve and use 90 to give a loan. The actual figure for this money distribution is backed by $100, but the total amount of money owned by the bank is 190 dollars. So their total wealth increased to 190 dollars, which is backed by only 100 dollars and 90 dollars they just generated by using the partial reserve system. All the banks in the world follow this system.
thats not how it works fractional reserve system is about not having to have 100% physical money ina bank vault for security reasons of said bank branch fractional reserve lending is a different fraction 'pot'. for different purpose. for different function and reason but lets delve into it banks do not take 10% of someones bank balance to lend out.. instead imagine a bank had 1000 customers of $7.5k each account ($7.5m) the bank without touching deposit amounts has a separate facility to allow them to CREATE $6.75m(90% comparable) of new money as loans without taking any money from their customers.. think of it as not taking money from customers.. but more of a "heres how much we have in custody we will take a 90% risk bet and create new money to the amount comparable of 90% of custody.. " but they want the borrower to repay that amount so the bank can burn that money(lessen the interest) to reopen/unlocked that risk allowance loan facility for the next loan EG when 100 people ask for $1k ($100k) in a loan.. the banks facility can only make another $6.75m loans.. meaning if $100k loans are done a week, the loan risk buffer is emptied in under 68 weeks so if more loans were made but no money was returned they cant make new loans. as the risk bufffer gets down to zero what you find is. instead of customers deposits being used.. banks sell the already created but not settled loan agreements, to other institutions so that the other institutions pay in and burn there money to unlock the risk buffer allowance.. and the borrower pays the other institution indirectly(im over simplifying) bank customers balance is not locked, decreased, used to fill a lending pot. its just a risk measure of how much a bank can create a pot and create new money in it to a certain tolerance based on total value under custody |
|
|
|
|
"unique" pfft your echo chamber circle is small. yes your fiction is not unique because you rely on drone echo's reciting you like a hymn-sheet
you even admit if you: "were entirely independent and self-reliant, the lack of structure would be to my detriment."
try to look outside your own small circle. try to be an independent thinker instead of a blind repeater of nonsense sold to you with empty promises..
EG you were sold promises that if you make a fiction go viral that people should use other systems, it would make you welthier.. years later you are still not independently wealthy.. how has that worked out for you so far
there are thousands of people that dont follow your prospective, thousands that dont even script repeat it the way i say it but understand the facts of what i say are more correct and to the point compared to yours. they can do research if they want to check and find the data code and agreements and proposals that support my methods of explaining things..
doomad. try to use blockdata, code and actual events when you try to say your versions of drama story telling..
what i say can be backed up by data, code, source material if people want to do their research..
your mentorings are the fiction.. you quote other fictions as your proof, you dont use the blockdata, code, proposals (echoing a fiction does not change it to fact)
your HOPES lay in befriending people to trust what you say but not check what you say via actual code/blockdata. i prefer to do the checks and correct the fictions, where people can then look at the blockdata, understand it better and then see it for themselves.
if you were a true educator being paid people should ask you for a refund. you are a story teller not an educator. you are the worse kind
and one final thing
i bothered to learn the code, read the blockdata understand all the nuances. i learned it independently. i gained from it independently i am financially independent and i am beholden to no one. independence is a virtue not a detriment
maybe gain a little confidence soon and stretch yourself outside of your echo chamber.
try to motivate yourself to learn bitcoin not stories. gain from actual knowledge and free yourself from the circle you entrapped yourself in
|
|
|
|
I'm talking about how the network is currently designed, and it's robust.
not as rubust as you think it is.. there is actually a tier system of node types and abilities.. its not as peer-to-peer equal as you have been told your mentor pretends that pruned nodes are "full" nodes, that 'backward compatible' stripped nodes are "full".. they are not. they offer less peer services and do less functions than an actual full node does learn the differences of what effects things have on the network when/if too many nodes 'prune'."strip",'bypass' EG use 2015 'backward' software thats stripped blockdata to then not IBD to full nodes, and bypasses validity checks.. or use 2019 that bypasses taproot validity checks. with 99.99% of nodes reliant on the code of core(multigenerational but still core based), there is a central point of failure effect aswell. bitcoin no longers stands by the solution of byzantines generals problem. years ago people wrote different nodes that knew the rules but checked them different ways in different code languages (coding is great at doing that) but things have got too cludgy and just become the same copy/paste line for line bug included bypass stuff as cores own node release.. bitcoin can be more robust than it currently is. |
|
|
|
Back to Bitcoin. How many people who understand the technical features of cryptocurrencies decide to “sell” this knowledge by choosing to work for companies or states? How many of them continue to live from salary to salary and believe that stability of income is the greatest happiness, continuing to have a very ordinary existence?
in all industries there are always those who learn the skill of a new niche/process/product/solution.. but then want to increase the barrier of entry for others and make their field specialised to preserve their status. and not have competition, so they can sell their skills.. thats capitalism there was a time where bitcoin was about openness, freedom where no one wanted to commercialise/patent the information but freely give it openly. however we are starting to see a commercialisation of information. where code is being made purposefully less straight forward to lay people, where buzzwords that dont match the descriptions are formed and terms are created to obfuscate information to form tiers of elitism where its now an education to learn the buzzwords before you can even be seen as a peer worthy of having conversation with. ive been in bitcoin for over a decade and i prefer to learn the technical detail/code/processes and use source material and data.. and then purposefully dumb it down to layman language, purposefully to help average joe people learn without needing an education in tech jargon. and i dont charge people for it. they just have to put up with my direct non ass kissing personality |
|
|
|
I heard about this also and I am not surprised. Isn’t this called something like M1 or M2 supply. Basically not the total supply of the currency but the currency out in circulation.
cash and coins is M0 M1 includes M0, plus digital transferable amounts 'in circulation' of basic deposit accounts M2 includes M0+M1, plus amounts including short terms savings accounts, escrows and other certificates of deposits M3 and M4 are the more complex measures of the previous plus as you go up the scale things like pension pots, long term savings, share portfolios and bank reserves |
|
|
|
Human Rights resolution 217 A (III)
rights are things wrote on paper decided by people writing on paper. and only truly exercised by going to a court AFTER a violation to: claim your rights were violated hope the violator will be punished. however this does not mean people have no responsibility in using their rights outside of the court. because by trying to enforce your rights you may be violating someone elses, and THEY can take YOU to court. EG Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
is countered by Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Notice this a Human Rights, not Persons Rights, Persons have no rights.
technically internationally its human. but then states do form their own laws/constitutions on "the person" and laws dont recognise you as human unless you take a state to international court of human rights.. because a state law recognises you as a person Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
|
|
|
|
But please can you give me some links I can read about this? I have noticed that rich men are very wise when it comes to money and wealth. And this is another example that rich people are just using to fool people.
you can easily google things like warren buffets "giving pledge" which he "says" will give 99% of his wealth.. but when you look at the details he actually says "distribute" 4% annually the amount of the shares he retains" well when you look at berkshire hathaway, it offers more then 4% profits on investments... he's not getting poorer.. .. bill gates says he pledges to charity.. the charity ofcourse is a foundation.. the bill and melinda gates foundation (donates to himself) to then fund project that then make profit as a separate trust he can benefit from |
|
|
|
LN, as well as other off-chain solutions (present and future solutions) are the only answer.
LN is not a present solution and suggesting "bitcoin do nothing, everyone use LN" is not the solution the solution is not also "just dont transact and wait a couple months the congestion might die down by then" there are reasons people need to use bitcoins confirmation/settlements security of the blockchain. there are security pitfuls of using other systems.. so trying to suggest people should move to other systems and stay away from bitcoin wont be helpful either.. yes subnetworks have a niche. and in the future new better ones will be made to meet the crtieria they were made for. but confirming/settling on bitcoin will still be a need so things still need to be done to bitcoin. and its not just "bigger blocks" its actually leaner transactions. count every byte, make every byte count condition all transaction formats to perform, whereby every byte serves a purpose. limit the transaction overhead computationally make spammers/bloaters personally penalised to not cause everyone to be expensed out of using bitcoin penalise spammer/bloater by enough of a multiple that they actually stop due to the expense all these things can help make genuine bitcoin transactors able to confirm/settle their transactions with less remorse of using bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
when the rich say 'ill give 95% of my billion away over my lifetime' they do not mean if they have $1b today they will be at $50m at death. what they actually mean is:
they have $1b in a bank account at 6% interest
meaning it earns $60m a year.
they give just $50m yearly interest away for the next 19 years ... (totalling the $950m pledge)
yet keeping the $1b lump plus earning $10m of personal spending per year
also the % interest is usually more than 6% but they only give 5% to meet their humanitarian/altruistic hustle pledge
enjoy that thought next time the rich try to make it sound like they are going to give up their wealth for humanity.. because reality is they are not.
|
|
|
|
t anyone who wants micropayments will adopt LN one way or another, sooner or later, and scaling the network to make room for non-micro transactions is begging to happen.
LN subnetwork is too flawed and even proven and admitted so by LN devs themselves.. im sure for the niche that want microtransactions should start afresh and build a subnetwork that can meet its promises and learn from LN mistakes.. but users wanting microtransactions should not be looking towards LN as their saviour.. its not the solution that was promised. not matter how much they utopian dream advertise it is millions of users have looked at LN seen its failures and decided to use other subnetwork bridges for microtransactions.. its time LN devs go back to the drawing board and learn from the mistakes just look at DCG who was a big sponsor of blockstream(core+LN devs) to do what they did(segwit as gateway key to LN) to push to create LN. but now 6 years later if you look at DCG portfolio of sister companies and look at how LITTLE of them actually advocate and use LN. just shows even they dont see it as a ready to use product they paid for. EG if you need to ask why coinbase(dcg sister) doesnt use LN.. you already know the answer |
|
|
|
b. not have the cludge of 1mb base 3mb witness. and just have full open access 4mb for transactions to fully utilise
This reeks of potential technical debt. It's something you've proposed on numerous occasions for the last few years now, but have never fleshed out. How, exactly, do you propose enacting this? Don't just give us the wishlist, tell us step by step what this option actually entails. the technical debt already exists.. its the cludge they already put in it to get segwit working the code sipa added when rewriting bitcoin core to make segwit work (the cludge) reeks of technical debt because it is.. however not having the cludge and getting back to simpler straight forward block sizes, proper coding, proper byte counting, proper validation.. lessens/undoes the technical debt if you dont thing core screwed up and introduced a open door to let junk in.. explain the ordinal inscription junk that abuses cores unconditioned opcodes due to segwit/taproot as for the cludge, yes there are many lines of code in different sections that deal with the legacy*witness and serialised / witness.. and all the other cludge of vb and weight unit manipulations of byte counting.. but thats cores own fault for creating the cludgy way of trying to slide segwit in.. getting back to clean code where its a unified 4mb where both legacy and segwit can be side by side under a unified single merkle to allow more transactions in the full 4mb space will require undoing the cludge (technical debt)
for instance in 2016 when core was a simple blocksize=1000000 it was much easier to move to blocksize=2000000 blocksize=4000000 blocksize=8000000 without affecting other area's of code muchbut the way they patched segwit together with the max block weight = 40000000 witness scale factor = 4 (1mb base 3mb witness=4mb) its not simple to go to: max block weight = 80000000 witness scale factor = 4 (2mb base 6mb witness=8mb) because the cludge of the other parts of the code then has to be changed too, in many places.. however undoing the cludge to have a unified, simplified blocksize=4000000 which yes will take rewriting lots of area's.. will later make it easier to go to blocksize=8000000.. but before even going to 8mb will help more transactions utilise the 4mb space in the unified blocksize=4000000 and yes while they are at it cleaning the code up. they can put conditions on the opcodes to not allow full blocksize wastage per script(witness) |
|
|
|
the reason i say about stop hoping for spot approval in 2023.. because the only people wanting it are impatient people hoping for market reaction..
most bitcoins want to hold bitcoin not shares, so most bitcoins excited about ETF approvals are not exaggerating how soon a approval will happen for the ability to themselves buy shares. but instead they want it soon to see markets reaction...
I kind of agree with you even though I find your way of saying it as a bit patronizing and maybe even overly generalizing. i have not, dont and wont do ass-kissery, hug a newbie games... dont take it personally, most of the time although i say the "you" word when quoting someone. i also recognise that hundreds of other people read these topics too, so it can apply to them too if they had similar opinions. so its not always pointing at the person i quote but others reading it that have similar idea's but when forum topics do have their facts straight there's nothing i need to add to the topic, i mostly get involved in adding in details that are either incorrect or lack the finer detail. most friendly styles of messaging is less about facts and more about trying to win someones trust to say any BS. and i find that tactic even worse than my direct approach there are differences between people who directly hold BTC and people who get exposure through markets through third parties or even if there might be pension plans and retirement accounts that are able to buy third party offered products and not able to buy BTC directly.
For sure, there are a lot of potential disadvantages to having so many BIG players starting to hold BTC for people and those people NOT being able to take direct possession of such BTC unless they sell their share(s) and buy the BTC directly. So, surely there are a lot of possibilities that open up for shenanigans, and it is unclear if some of them will end up getting reckt if they are not HOLDING the underlying BTC,
thats why the SEC doesnt want to make mistakes and less likely to broadstroke approve several in one go but then when it comes time for making certain kinds of votes about BTC and/or forks, then the fact that BTC are actually held by entities rather than individuals, some of the BTC incentives could end up getting perverted by such dynamics of normies putting value into BTC so that Blackrock (and some other larger players) can hold and/or control potentially large quantities of BTC and the forks off of such BTC.
when it comes to development/fork decisions. who holds more coin doesnt matter.. its who owns the most economic nodes(services) and who owns most successful mining pools.. that what chooses the vote.. and with added sponsorship of devs to add features that align to a corporations mission.. that pushes things more then how many thousands of coin they custodianised It might not be clear how many years it might take before some of the dynamics of bitcoin ends up being perverted, especially since legislators are already trying to proclaim that BTC is ONLY valid if it is held by third parties, and those kinds of dynamics could cause quite a bit of challenges for various individual BTC HODLers...
There are likely going to be continued informational campaigns regarding the value of BTC self-custody. and so it is difficult to see in advance how self-custody versus third party custody is going to end up playing out with the passage of time.
the US regulations/proposals are not even suggesting self-custody is bad.. thats just the mis-representations of a few of the mixer crowd not liking that their affiliated service is in hot water so they are trying to pretend the whole bitcoin ecosystem is at threat to garner support for a cause they dont even understand as for thinking 12 will get approved at same time. that again is a pipe dream.. half the applications dont meet all specifications.. so they are not all going to get approved at same time.. at best id say 4.. but personally id say 1
We can agree to disagree, and I am not going to claim to have had studied the details of the various offerings.. but maybe we could make a bet.. and if more than 6 get approved, then I win... hahahahahaha.. I am not really willing to bet very much, but it could be fun, even though we would need to find a mutually agreeable escrow and otherwise work out the terms... which I might end up getting screwed if I am not even very comfortable with my somewhat SOMA speculations in this direction. i dont bet, gamble or trade on this forum. nice try though as for the last part about the agents buying baskets
(for scenarios sake of mentioning a company lets use the topics brand: grayscale)
as soon as an approval is done. 90 days later the GBTC ETF is operational and grayscale is giving out its shares(EG 600k coin = XXXmil equivalent shares)
meaning the supply of shares is high on the 91st day.
it will take a while before greyscales own allotment of shares are sold to the public. meaning plenty of time from application approved to needing to add more baskets to supply later demand. maybe 3-6 months. so agents wont need to buy on approval day in large lumps. to then custodianise into coinbase to then collateralise to get greyscale to offer shares to agents to then sell shares to customers.. it would be a 3-6 month thing not a 1 day mega event.
grayscale wont want to accept agent openings on the 91st day as thats competition against grayscales own share allotment. so i doubt we would see agents flocking in on the 91st day buying and hoarding baskets of thousands of coins each all at once
(grayscale will have their own internal vetting process of who can be a agent/broker/dealer of their shares)
so again not some 1 day event where everyone goes on a BTC lump sum purchase event of thousands of coin in one day
Even though this is a grayscale thread, I doubt that Grayscale is a good example, because purportedly they already have enough BTC (600k or so) to cover all the shares, so the GBTC shares would get converted into Grayscale ETF shares... so yeah, maybe BTC have to be moved around, but on net there is no additional BTC purchases from the mere conversion. .even though there could be desires to get in and out of them when the new shares start to get traded. The other ETFs would presumptively be purchasing BTC at the same rate that clients pile into the ETF products, so as soon as the ETFs go on the market, and whether there are any special acquisition abilities in the first 90 days, prior to the ETF actually going live, then surely I am not sure if that might create some market pressures, and I am not even aware of how it works with any kind of particularity. yes of course there will be sentimental FOMO pumping. but not what id describe as lump sum basket buying the day a ETF is approved... my opinion ofcourse
You don't seem to be saying anything different than me in the pumping expectations arena. I was largely proclaiming that pumping would be likely to come from the news of the BTC spot ETF approval in part based on the regulatory clarity that it helps to provide and the other part based on the desire to start to front run the actual product, which seems to be possible by retail and other folks who might have cash that is sitting on the sidelines and wanting to participate in some BTC pumpening.. which surely may or may not end up playing out, but I am more inclined to believe that there will be pump upon the news of whatever BTC spot ETF approvals end up happening rather than no pump or rather than a dump.. ...and sure there could be some other counter-vailing news coming out at the same time, so I am not the kind of person who plays around in these kinds of plays anyhow. I have been employing my own same system since about late 2015, which is to sell on the way up and buy on the way down, so I hardly give any shits because if the BTC price goes up I sell and if it goes down I buy. I don't change much of anything based on what I believe might happen, except maybe on the margins.. or maybe I might change the intervals of my sales or my buys depending on how fast I might speculate that the BTC price might more in certain ranges... but ultimately, I rely little on predictions and I am more or less like a bot... but doing my resets manually since I know jack shit about how to get a bot to cooperate with my ideas of what to do without screwing things up. news/social drama pumping is temporary.. those are pump and dumps.. actual lumpsum buying and hoarding to then collateralise to give shares for pension investors to buy and hoard shares for years.. where those shares are not sold back into baskets to unlock bitcoin again.. those types of events are the value riser stuff i look for.. things that keep prices up so the next 'bottom' is higher then last bottom.. the next top is higher then the last. im not interested in the daily whims of news speculation temporary pump and dumps i dont do day trading any more.. i just hoard and play it long. i look for the actual events that cause long term change good/bad. i dont value my hoard in the daily whims of media |
|
|
|
|
the reason i say about stop hoping for spot approval in 2023.. because the only people wanting it are impatient people hoping for market reaction..
most bitcoins want to hold bitcoin not shares, so most bitcoins excited about ETF approvals are not exaggerating how soon a approval will happen for the ability to themselves buy shares. but instead they want it soon to see markets reaction...
as for thinking 12 will get approved at same time. that again is a pipe dream.. half the applications dont meet all specifications.. so they are not all going to get approved at same time.. at best id say 4.. but personally id say 1
..
as for the last part about the agents buying baskets
(for scenarios sake of mentioning a company lets use the topics brand: grayscale)
as soon as an approval is done. 90 days later the GBTC ETF is operational and grayscale is giving out its shares(EG 600k coin = XXXmil equivalent shares)
meaning the supply of shares is high on the 91st day.
it will take a while before greyscales own allotment of shares are sold to the public. meaning plenty of time from application approved to needing to add more baskets to supply later demand. maybe 3-6 months. so agents wont need to buy on approval day in large lumps. to then custodianise into coinbase to then collateralise to get greyscale to offer shares to agents to then sell shares to customers.. it would be a 3-6 month thing not a 1 day mega event.
grayscale wont want to accept agent openings on the 91st day as thats competition against grayscales own share allotment. so i doubt we would see agents flocking in on the 91st day buying and hoarding baskets of thousands of coins each all at once
(grayscale will have their own internal vetting process of who can be a agent/broker/dealer of their shares)
so again not some 1 day event where everyone goes on a BTC lump sum purchase event of thousands of coin in one day
yes of course there will be sentimental FOMO pumping. but not what id describe as lump sum basket buying the day a ETF is approved... my opinion ofcourse
|
|
|
|
|
a december deadline has nothing to do with any serious ETF filing deadlines.. its just a consultation period of a filing that is not ticking very many boxes at all. so the december deadline has no connection to any importance of rushing other applications.. that was my whole point
we are already in november so you thinking there is chances of a 2023 operation also fall flat because even if one magically gets accepted it would be another 90days before fully operational.. so again 2024.
you are not going to see an operational ETF in 2023 so stop hoping for spot market pumps in 2023 caused by ETF agent basket purchases
sorry not gonna happen within the next 6 weeks
|
|
|
|
Well the worrying realization is to see how much of the money out there has never actually been printed.
Yes, in theory any bank could send a request to the mint to print the remaining trillions that have never been printed.
when you realise paper money is not actually yours, you just get to hold it and use it.. its actually a patented product of the banks. which they could at their own whim take out of circulation or declare certain serial number ranges as not deposit-able/redeemable for new bank notes/currency.. you soon see paper money doesnt have the "property" "ownership" you think it does yes they have better promises to cater to deposits and honour cash legitimacy of trade. announce with lengthy grace periods to not to stop circulation or redemption easily.. but they can. cash is not "yours".. yes you bearer it (hold it) but it not your property. that cash can devalue or go out of circulation out of your wishes, desires, control, power. |
|
|
|
I was looking at some statistics about FIAT money, taking the European Union's Euro as an example. When comparing physical money, i.e., banknotes and coins, bank deposits, a stark difference can be noticed. physical Euro money: ~1.5 Trillion Source: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/banknotes/html/index.en.htmlAll while the Euros in bank accounts peaked at a total of 11.7 trillion, now 10.5 trillion Source: https://data.ecb.europa.eu/data/datasets/BSI/BSI.M.U2.Y.V.M10.X.1.U2.2300.Z01.EWhat does this mean? There's undeniable proof that central banks know with confidence that most of the money in existence isn't destined for usage by real flesh and bone humans. It's printed specifically to be used by governments, banks and mega corporations, that will never need to withdraw it from an ATM like a real person would. when someone deposits cash into a bank. that bank sends it away to be burned. the bank needs to keep a daily allowance of upto EU500 per account ready to access (ATM and cashtellers) per day which they send active requests to the mint to print and deliver to refill atms when people withdraw from the ATM. this process is not the inflation "print" its just the 'burn one: print one'.. like for like to keep banknotes clean/uptodate. which when someone withdraws via ATM... the 500 digital amount decreases(on customers viewing side) to pay for the 500cash tomorrow which the person took out of the ATM today for the action of requesting 500.. thus the atm needs to be refilled. the amount of cash in banks(ATM's/cash tellers) is not the $1.5trill but more closer to $400billlion the other $1.1trillion is in separate businesses cash tills, safes, peoples pockets etc lets say a bank had (for simplicity) 1 customer average savings 7400 each cash in hand 7400. deposits it. 7400 cash burned. 7400 bank account balanced. bank then buys 500 fresh notes to cover that customers ATM withdrawal limit if the customer takes 500 cash tomorrow the bank buys another 500 to refill ATM for next day the 500 bank balance isnt exactly deleted, it goes to the mint to buy fresh banknotes at face value to refill the ATM for what went out of the ATM once printed the mint(treasury) is only allowed to keep a few percent of the amount paid to print notes banks dont keep citizens full bank savings amount in the bank. they dont need to.. they just hold 5-8% of bank balance for withdrawals |
|
|
|
I wonder why we have to keep conflating the discussion with BSV and BCH.
because the trolls who say it are stuck in their 6yo narrative thats been debunked but they dont have the brain power to do any research to actually realise how wrong they are about alot of things. so they just repeat themselves hoping if they can recruit one more idiot then it must mean they are right. they lack actually making realistic and rational observations about data, code and mechanisms that can benefit bitcoin and instead they just want to pretend if someone is not following cores roadmap, they must be some old altcoin tribe.. to them its brand war clan fight. 'if your not with core, your against bitcoin' nonsense.. rather than actually discussing REALISTIC data requirements and plausible scenarios of realistic possibilities |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
